Align .suffixes example with .suffix example in pathlib doc#30418
Align .suffixes example with .suffix example in pathlib doc#30418hoffmann wants to merge 1 commit intopython:3.10from
Conversation
|
Hello, and thanks for your contribution! I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA). Recognized GitHub usernameWe couldn't find a bugs.python.org (b.p.o) account corresponding to the following GitHub usernames: This might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in one's b.p.o account settings. This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at this contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue. You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received. Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it! |
|
Can you say more? I don’t understand the change being proposed. |
"Align" seems to mean making this consistent with the examples for This does seems like an improvement to me, because:
|
taleinat
requested review from
1st1,
Fidget-Spinner,
abalkin,
asvetlov,
berkerpeksag,
brettcannon,
cjw296,
encukou,
ericsnowcurrently,
ericvsmith,
ethanfurman,
ezio-melotti,
gpshead,
gvanrossum,
iritkatriel,
isidentical,
lysnikolaou,
markshannon,
methane and
ncoghlan
as code owners
taleinat
removed request for
Fidget-Spinner,
abalkin,
asvetlov,
cjw296,
encukou,
ericsnowcurrently,
ericvsmith,
ethanfurman,
ezio-melotti,
gvanrossum,
iritkatriel,
isidentical,
lysnikolaou,
markshannon,
ncoghlan,
pablogsal,
pganssle,
rhettinger,
terryjreedy and
tiran
|
(Oops! I changed the base branch from 3.10 to main, and this requested a review from about half of the maintainers... sorry for the noise!) |
|
@hoffmann, I'm inclined to merge this PR, and for such a minor docs change we can forgo signing the CLA. However, before we can merge this, we'll need to rebase this against the main branch, and then change the PR to be against the main branch, rather than 3.10. Could you please do so? |
terryjreedy
changed the title
|
The title puzzled me also until I read Tal's explanation; I changed it accordingly. I agree that this is an improvement, though trivial enough to forego CLA for this PR. It might be easier to close this and start over with a checkout branched from 'main'. @peter: 'main' is our development branch and we nearly always patch it first and backport if appropriate. |
merwok
changed the title
|
Ignoring the CLA issue, is there a reason this is targeting Python 3.10 and not |
|
Targeting 3.10 is an error, which I why I suggested closing and starting over (versus trying to fix by rebasing), as retargeting this one failed. |
|
This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
|
I am closing this as the CLA is still not signed. |
7 participants
No description provided.